Unearthed Arcana SRD - SCANNED

[Janx]

Wouldn't it be easier to gut a copy of the UA and tape white sheets of paper over the non-OGL bits BEFORE scanning the pages.

At that point, the content you've put into the PC is pure OGL and distributable.

Or ask yourself, why bother?

Is there anything so earthshakingly meaningful in the UA that it MUST be distributed? We're not talking the Koran, or Tora here.

Anybody in the game making business who wants to use OGL content from the UA is being disrespectful by NOT owning the real UA. Talk about not giving credit where credit is due. The same would go for any OGL content. Say I want to use some of Monte's stuff in a book I'm making. But some dude has made a handy PDF of all "Monte's Stuff" It's kinda lame to go get it from there. I should go to the source.

Lastly, consider WotC's lawyers. All they gotta do is send you a letter. That letter will scare the crap out of you for at LEAST 5 minutes, regardless of whether they have a winning case. Plus, to follow through and win, you'll have to goto court. That's another hassle which will cost you money (for your own lawyer). Lawyers exist to protect people from Lawyers. And Lawyers earn retainer fees by finding people like you to sue on their employers behalf.

Just a few thoughts. Basically, why bother.

Janx

 

[MerricB]

Wouldn't it be easier to gut a copy of the UA and tape white sheets of paper over the non-OGL bits BEFORE scanning the pages.

No.

FYI, I have converted part of UA to just the OGC text, for purposes of my swashbuckling campaign and redistribution to my players. It was an interesting exercise.

The surprising bits of PI are in the examples of how the rules work. This is because they often use proper names which have been declared as PI.

Cheers!

 

[philreed]

Anybody in the game making business who wants to use OGL content from the UA is being disrespectful by NOT owning the real UA. Talk about not giving credit where credit is due. The same would go for any OGL content. Say I want to use some of Monte's stuff in a book I'm making. But some dude has made a handy PDF of all "Monte's Stuff" It's kinda lame to go get it from there. I should go to the source.

I'll stand behind this concept.

 

[eyebeams]

Anybody in the game making business who wants to use OGL content from the UA is being disrespectful by NOT owning the real UA. Talk about not giving credit where credit is due.

I was under the impression that this was a fan project. More to the point though, this sort of thing is useful even if you do own the book.

I just completed the first draft of a D20 Modern thing. I own D20 Modern. But for the most part I've been using the html Modern SRD. It's linkable, searchable and intuitive, especially since the window's right beside where I'm doing the actual writing. Somehow, I think owning the book but using a more convenient resource to reference open content does not make me a Bad Person.

The same would go for any OGL content. Say I want to use some of Monte's stuff in a book I'm making. But some dude has made a handy PDF of all "Monte's Stuff" It's kinda lame to go get it from there. I should go to the source.

Well, folks are already doing it. What's "worse" is they selling that kind of stuff to you in the form of Ultimate series from Mongoose. I seriously doubt that Ultimate Feats is meant to be a product for people who already own every book with those feats.

The problem is not with the creation of these things. It's with two things:

1) Distribution

If it's a raw .pdf stuck in the corner the internet, it will take real dedication to rip offf WoTC. You'll have to deal with an eyesore or go through the process of editing the pdf, which is not tough but isn't pleasant, either. You'll be paying for ink of you want to use it in your game, to boot.

If it's an .rtf file it gets a little stickier because these are easily modded. If it's a pretty .pdf then it does interfere with commercial work. I think .html (distributed over a bunch of pages) is a good choice because it's pretty *and* inconvenient.

2) Distinctiveness

The second bit has, I think, to do with the identity of the product. If you reprint all of the OGC from just one book, you're obviously trying to offer an alternative to that book. If it's a book of open content with a general theme that comes from several sources (like the Ultimate books), this isn't that kind of thing and it stands on its own.

So maybe a big book of Open Character Options that includes just the nchargen in UA isn't so bad, especially if it mixes it up from other products with this stuff.

Lastly, consider WotC's lawyers. All they gotta do is send you a letter. That letter will scare the crap out of you for at LEAST 5 minutes, regardless of whether they have a winning case. Plus, to follow through and win, you'll have to goto court. That's another hassle which will cost you money (for your own lawyer). Lawyers exist to protect people from Lawyers. And Lawyers earn retainer fees by finding people like you to sue on their employers behalf.

That's why I strongly suggest that folks actually contact WotC and ask them. In fact, I think it's mildly disrepectful not to.

 

[MerricB]

That's why I strongly suggest that folks actually contact WotC and ask them. In fact, I think it's mildly disrepectful not to.

Before you do that, find your own lawyer and ask their opinion.

The OGL is a legal contract and, even if you're not making a profit off it, you need to properly understand it. (This is especially true when you might deprive someone else of a profit).

A simple query to Wizards will probably get a "no" response unless you've first taken the steps to properly research the legal issues on your own - and that means consulting a lawyer.

Cheers!

 

[Piratecat]

Truth is, I think the best way for a group of people to do this legally is for each of them to go out and buy the book. They agree over email what is PI and what isn't, then either one person scans and combines those sections or everyone scans and edits their particular section of the book. After this, the legal collection of rules are combined by one person.

Whether doing this project without owning UA is respectful or not, please don't use EN World to organize a project that is illegal. Many thanks.

 

[der_kluge]

Should I take this opportunity to mention that I have a .pdf of the AU?

Nah.

 

[Felon]

Anybody in the game making business who wants to use OGL content from the UA is being disrespectful by NOT owning the real UA. Talk about not giving credit where credit is due. The same would go for any OGL content. Say I want to use some of Monte's stuff in a book I'm making. But some dude has made a handy PDF of all "Monte's Stuff" It's kinda lame to go get it from there. I should go to the source.

Apparently, you've arrived late to class. Very late. This is a very old gripe, to which the response is that the point of providing UA in a digital format is that it's more convenient for many purposes, such as performing text searches or so that DM's can print out sections of the rules that he's using. People who want the book already own it.

Lastly, consider WotC's lawyers. All they gotta do is send you a letter. That letter will scare the crap out of you for at LEAST 5 minutes, regardless of whether they have a winning case. Plus, to follow through and win, you'll have to goto court. That's another hassle which will cost you money (for your own lawyer). Lawyers exist to protect people from Lawyers. And Lawyers earn retainer fees by finding people like you to sue on their employers behalf.

Are you a lawyer? Probably not, or you'd know lawyers don't sue individuals with shallow pockets. Frankly, I don't expect that WotC will even have an addres to send the letter to.

Just a few thoughts. Basically, why bother.

Why bother posting this post? Why bother getting out of the bed in the morning? Oh, what a pointless, moot universe we live in.

 

[resistor]

I'm a little surprised at some of the fair use discussion going on here. In the filesharing world, it is a generally accepted fair use that distributing copies of a work between two people who already own it is not illegal.

The argument runs something like this: when you buy a copy of a book/movie/song, you are actually purchasing two separate things. 1) a physical copy of the book/movie/song and 2) a license to use that book/movie/song. Thus there should be as many people who have licenses to use it as there are actual copies of the book/movie/song. Even if your copy burns up when your house catches fire, you still own a license to use the work and is not illegal for you to acquire another copy.

I suggest you look up the 9th Circuit Ruling in MGM vs. Grokster. The judge affirms that in light of the history of fair-use, peer-to-peer networks are "capable of substantial or commercially significant noninfringing uses." This is the same issue.

Did you know that you can't play a European DVD on an American DVD player? They DVD makers will try to tell you that you have to buy another copy for an American player because it's illegal to rip your DVD so you can watch it here. They're just blowing smoke, trying to scare people who don't know their fair-use rights.

Just the same way, "No portion of this work other than the material designated as Open Game Content may be reproduced in any form without written permission." is the same kind of smoke. All huff and no puff. And, more importantly, legally unenforcable.

I say go for it. Don't let copyright holders scare you out of exercising your fair-use rights.

 

[Swiftbrook]

Should I take this opportunity to mention that I have a .pdf of the AU?

Nah.

With or without Product Identity?

With?...No, don't mention it. You can't share it according to the discussion.

Without?...Don't just sit there, attach it to your next post!

-Swiftbrook